Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/603,391

ROTOR ASSEMBLY

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Mar 13, 2024
Examiner
VO, ETHAN NGUYEN
Art Unit
2834
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Rolls-Royce
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
69%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 69% — above average
69%
Career Allow Rate
25 granted / 36 resolved
+1.4% vs TC avg
Strong +23% interview lift
Without
With
+23.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
33 currently pending
Career history
69
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
62.2%
+22.2% vs TC avg
§102
26.5%
-13.5% vs TC avg
§112
11.3%
-28.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 36 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miyamae (DE 112016004399). As to claim 19, Miyamae discloses a rotor assembly (Fig. 1) comprising: a rotating shaft having a rotation axis that defines an axial direction (Fig. 1); permanent magnets attached to the rotating shaft (Fig. 1); a sleeve ring configured to radially retain the permanent magnets (Fig. 1); wherein the sleeve ring comprises a front end and a rear end (Fig. 1), and is sealed both at the front end and the rear end, such that a hermetically sealed enclosure in which the permanent magnets are located is provided (“An end element 31 is on the rotor shaft 9 attached, and the other end element 32 is mother-shaped. A female screw thread 321 is on the inner circumference of the other end element 32 educated. A male screw thread 91 at the rotor shaft 9 is formed in the female screw thread 321 screwed”). PNG media_image1.png 603 676 media_image1.png Greyscale As to claim 20, Miyamae discloses the rotor assembly of claim 19, further comprising: a front axial stop; and a rear axial stop attached to or part of the rotating shaft, wherein the permanent magnets are attached to the rotating shaft between the front axial stop and the rear axial stop, and wherein the sleeve ring is sealed at the front end to the front axial stop and at the rear end to the rear axial stop (Fig. 1: “An end element 31 is on the rotor shaft 9 attached, and the other end element 32 is mother-shaped. A female screw thread 321 is on the inner circumference of the other end element 32 educated. A male screw thread 91 at the rotor shaft 9 is formed in the female screw thread 321 screwed”). PNG media_image1.png 603 676 media_image1.png Greyscale Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claims 1-2, 4, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamae (DE 112016004399) and in view of Shen (CN 108390484). As to claim 1, Miyamae discloses a rotor assembly (Fig. 1) comprising: a rotating shaft having a rotation axis that defines an axial direction (Fig. 1); permanent magnets attached to the rotating shaft (Fig. 1); at least one sleeve ring configured to radially retain the permanent magnets (Fig. 1); wherein the sleeve comprises a front end and a rear end (Fig. 1), and is sealed both at the front end and the rear end, such that a hermetically sealed enclosure in which the permanent magnets are located is provided (“An end element 31 is on the rotor shaft 9 attached, and the other end element 32 is mother-shaped. A female screw thread 321 is on the inner circumference of the other end element 32 educated. A male screw thread 91 at the rotor shaft 9 is formed in the female screw thread 321 screwed”). PNG media_image1.png 603 676 media_image1.png Greyscale Miyamae fails to disclose a sealing sleeve arranged between the permanent magnets and the at least one sleeve ring. Shen, however, discloses a sealing sleeve arranged between the permanent magnets and the at least one sleeve ring (Fig. 2). PNG media_image2.png 314 478 media_image2.png Greyscale Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the assembly of Miyamae with a sealing sleeve arranged between the permanent magnets and the at least one sleeve ring, as disclosed by Shen, to improve heat dissipation of the rotor. As to claim 2, the combination of Miyamae and Shen discloses the rotor assembly of claim 1, further comprising a front axial stop and a rear axial stop attached to or being part of the rotating shaft (Fig. 1 of Miyamae), wherein the permanent magnets are attached to the rotating shaft between the front axial stop and the rear axial stop (Fig.1 of Miyamae), and wherein the sealing sleeve is sealed at the front end to the front axial stop and at the rear end to the rear axial stop (Fig.1 of Miyamae). PNG media_image1.png 603 676 media_image1.png Greyscale As to claim 4, the combination of Miyamae and Shen discloses the rotor assembly of claim 2, wherein a connection of the front axial stop and rear axial stop to the rotating shaft is sealed (Miyamae: “An end element 31 is on the rotor shaft 9 attached, and the other end element 32 is mother-shaped. A female screw thread 321 is on the inner circumference of the other end element 32 educated. A male screw thread 91 at the rotor shaft 9 is formed in the female screw thread 321 screwed”). As to claim 17, the combination of Miyamae and Shen discloses the rotor assembly of claim 1, wherein the permanent magnets are segmented in the axial direction (Fig. 1 of Miyamae). PNG media_image3.png 543 649 media_image3.png Greyscale As to claim 18, the combination of Miyamae and Shen discloses the rotor assembly of claim 1, wherein the thickness of the sealing sleeve is smaller than a thickness of the at least one sleeve ring (Fig. 2 of Shen). PNG media_image4.png 290 478 media_image4.png Greyscale Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamae, Shen and in view of Ferrara (US 20230051422). As to claim 3, the combination of Miyamae and Shen discloses the rotor assembly of claim 2. Miyamae fails to disclose wherein the front axial stop is a front disc, and the rear axial stop is a rear disc, and wherein the front disc and the rear disc extend in a radial direction from the rotating shaft. Ferrara discloses the front axial stop is a front disc, and the rear axial stop is a rear disc, and wherein the front disc and the rear disc extend in a radial direction from the rotating shaft (Para 0038). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the assembly of Miyamae with the front axial stop is a front disc, and the rear axial stop is a rear disc, and wherein the front disc and the rear disc extend in a radial direction from the rotating shaft, as disclosed by Ferrara, in order to properly secure the sleeve and the magnets. As to claim 5, the combination of Miyamae and Shen discloses the rotor assembly of claim 2. Miyamae fails to disclose wherein the front axial stop and the rear axial stop are made of a same material as the rotating shaft. Ferrara, however, discloses the front axial stop and the rear axial stop are made of a same material as the rotating shaft (Para 0036 and 0038). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the assembly of Miyamae with the front axial stop and the rear axial stop are made of a same material as the rotating shaft, as disclosed by Ferrara, to reduce manufacturing cost and simplify material inquiry. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamae, Shen and in view of Moon (US 20230193917). As to claim 6, the combination of Miyamae and Shen discloses the rotor assembly of claim 2. Miyamae fails to disclose the sealing sleeve is welded, brazed, or soldered at the front end and at the rear end to the front axial stop and the rear axial stop, respectively, to achieve the sealing. Moon, however, discloses the sealing sleeve is welded at the front end and at the rear end to the front axial stop and the rear axial stop, respectively, to achieve the sealing (Para 0238). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the assembly of Miyamae with the sealing sleeve is welded at the front end and at the rear end to the front axial stop and the rear axial stop, respectively, to achieve the sealing, as disclosed by Moon, to establish a more secure connection. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamae, Shen and in view of Wang (CN 114421701). As to claim 7, the combination of Miyamae and Shen discloses the rotor assembly of claim 2. Miyamae fails to disclose wherein the sealing sleeve is sealed by a first gasket at the front end and by a second gasket at the rear end to the front axial stop and the rear axial stop, respectively. Wang, however, discloses the sealing sleeve (3; Fig. 8) is sealed by a first gasket at the front end and by a second gasket (g; Fig. 8) at the rear end to the front axial stop and the rear axial stop, respectively. PNG media_image5.png 185 440 media_image5.png Greyscale Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the assembly of Miyamae with the sealing sleeve is sealed by a first gasket at the front end and by a second gasket at the rear end to the front axial stop and the rear axial stop, respectively, as disclosed by Wang, to properly secure the sleeve. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamae, Shen and in view of Boxberg (US 20220209598). As to claim 9, the combination of Miyamae and Shen discloses the rotor assembly of claim 2. Miyamae fails to disclose wherein the sealing sleeve is connected by an adhesive joint at the front end and the rear end to the front axial stop and the rear axial stop, respectively, such that sealing is achieved. Boxberg, however, discloses wherein the sealing sleeve is connected by an adhesive joint at the front end and the rear end to the front axial stop and the rear axial stop, respectively, such that sealing is achieved (Para 0059). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the assembly of Miyamae with wherein the sealing sleeve is connected by an adhesive joint at the front end and the rear end to the front axial stop and the rear axial stop, respectively, such that sealing is achieved, as disclosed by Boxberg, in order to better secure the sleeve. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamae, Shen and in view of Ono (US 20230402889). As to claim 10, the combination of Miyamae and Shen discloses the rotor assembly of claim 1. Miyamae fails to disclose wherein the sealing sleeve is made of a carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer. Ono, however, discloses the sealing sleeve is made of a carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer (Para 0041). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the assembly of Miyamae with the sealing sleeve is made of a carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer, as disclosed by Ono, to allow for the rotor to operate at higher temperatures. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamae, Shen and in view of Imahori (US 20230018843). As to claim 11, the combination of Miyamae and Shen discloses the rotor assembly of claim 1. Miyamae fails to disclose wherein the sealing sleeve is made of stainless steel. Imahori, however, discloses wherein the sealing sleeve is made of stainless steel (Para 0037). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the assembly of Miyamae with the sealing sleeve is made of stainless steel, as disclosed by Imahori, to prevent reduction of magnetic properties. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamae, Shen, Imahori and in view of Shiao (US 20090284093). As to claim 12, the combination of Miyamae, Shen, and Imahori discloses the rotor assembly of claim 11, wherein the sealing sleeve is made of stainless steel, and wherein the at least one sleeve ring is formed by a carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer (Shen: “the metallic sheath ring 303 is carbon fibre material”). Miyamae fails to disclose wherein the sealing sleeve is heat-shrunk on an outside of the permanent magnets. Shiao, however, discloses wherein the sealing sleeve is heat-shrunk on an outside of the permanent magnets (Para 0031). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the assembly of Miyamae with wherein the sealing sleeve is heat-shrunk on an outside of the permanent magnets, as disclosed by Shiao, to better secure the magnets. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamae, Shen and in view of Gehrke (US 20220329120). As to claim 13, the combination of Miyamae and Shen discloses the rotor assembly of claim 1. Miyamae fails to disclose wherein the permanent magnets are neodymium iron boron magnets. Gehrke, however, discloses wherein the permanent magnets are neodymium iron boron magnets (Para 0034). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the assembly of Miyamae with the permanent magnets are neodymium iron boron magnets, as disclosed by Gehrke, in order to increase magnetic strength. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamae, Shen and in view of Reddy (US 20180337565). As to claim 14, the combination of Miyamae and Shen discloses the rotor assembly of claim 1. Miyamae fails to disclose wherein the at least one sleeve ring is press-fit or shrink-fit to the sealing sleeve, or attached by hydraulic dilation to the sealing sleeve. Reddy, however, discloses wherein the at least one sleeve ring is shrink-fit to the sealing sleeve (Para 0038). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the assembly of Miyamae with the at least one sleeve ring is shrink-fit to the sealing sleeve, as disclosed by Reddy, in order to better secure the sleeve. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamae, Shen and in view of Andonian (US 20180316246). As to claim 15, the combination of Miyamae and Shen discloses the rotor assembly of claim 1. Miyamae fails to disclose wherein an outer surface of the sealing sleeve has been machined or ground for reducing surface roughness, improving interference fit tolerance, or a combination thereof. Andonian, however, discloses wherein an outer surface of the sealing sleeve has been machined for reducing surface roughness and improving interference fit tolerance (Para 0025). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the assembly of Miyamae with an outer surface of the sealing sleeve has been machined for reducing surface roughness and improving interference fit tolerance, as disclosed by Andonian, in order to allow for a better fit tolerance. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamae, Shen and in view of Gyllensten (US 20220209599). As to claim 16, the combination of Miyamae and Shen discloses the rotor assembly of claim 1. Miyamae fails to disclose wherein the sealing sleeve is press-fit or shrink-fit to the permanent magnets. Gyllensten, however, discloses wherein the sealing sleeve is shrink-fit to the permanent magnets (Para 0042). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the assembly of Miyamae with the sealing sleeve is shrink-fit to the permanent magnets, as disclosed by Gyllensten, to increase the connection strength. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamae and in view of Moon. As to claim 21, Miyamae discloses the rotor assembly of claim 20. Miyamae fails to disclose the sealing sleeve is welded, brazed, or soldered at the front end and at the rear end to the front axial stop and the rear axial stop, respectively, to achieve the sealing. Moon, however, discloses the sealing sleeve is welded at the front end and at the rear end to the front axial stop and the rear axial stop, respectively, to achieve the sealing (Para 0238). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the assembly of Miyamae with the sealing sleeve is welded at the front end and at the rear end to the front axial stop and the rear axial stop, respectively, to achieve the sealing, as disclosed by Moon, to establish a more secure connection. Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamae and in view of Wang. As to claim 21, Miyamae discloses the rotor assembly of claim 2. Miyamae fails to disclose wherein the sealing sleeve is sealed by a first gasket at the front end and by a second gasket at the rear end to the front axial stop and the rear axial stop, respectively. Wang, however, discloses the sealing sleeve (3; Fig. 8) is sealed by a first gasket at the front end and by a second gasket (g; Fig. 8) at the rear end to the front axial stop and the rear axial stop, respectively. PNG media_image5.png 185 440 media_image5.png Greyscale Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the assembly of Miyamae with the sealing sleeve is sealed by a first gasket at the front end and by a second gasket at the rear end to the front axial stop and the rear axial stop, respectively, as disclosed by Wang, to properly secure the sleeve. Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamae and in view of Boxberg. As to claim 23, Miyamae discloses the rotor assembly of claim 20. Miyamae fails to disclose wherein the sealing sleeve is connected by an adhesive joint at the front end and the rear end to the front axial stop and the rear axial stop, respectively, such that sealing is achieved. Boxberg, however, discloses wherein the sealing sleeve is connected by an adhesive joint at the front end and the rear end to the front axial stop and the rear axial stop, respectively, such that sealing is achieved (Para 0059). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the assembly of Miyamae with wherein the sealing sleeve is connected by an adhesive joint at the front end and the rear end to the front axial stop and the rear axial stop, respectively, such that sealing is achieved, as disclosed by Boxberg, in order to better secure the sleeve. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 8 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. As to claim 8, the combination of Miyamae, Shen and Wang discloses the rotor assembly of claim 7. Miyamae fails to disclose wherein the first gasket and the second gasket are arranged in recesses at radially outer faces of the front axial stop and the rear axial stop, respectively. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN N VO whose telephone number is (571)270-7593. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am - 5pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher M Koehler can be reached on 571 272 3560. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /ETHAN NGUYEN VO/ Examiner, Art Unit 2834 /CHRISTOPHER M KOEHLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 13, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 30, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603538
ROTATING ELECTRIC MACHINE SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12592597
SELECTIVE PERMEABILITY ROTOR STRUCTURE FOR INTERIOR PERMANENT MAGNET MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12587059
Electric Motor Coolant Frame and Header
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12580446
ELECTRIC MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12580501
VIBRATION WAVE RADIATING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
69%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+23.2%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 36 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month